• Krackalot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    As a religious individual(/s), I totally agree with this. Except for my religion. Mine is totally right. Everyone else’s is crazy and wrong, but mine is correct.

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s insane! Yours can’t be right because mine is correct.

      Unless yours is the same as mine then I agree with you and are 100% in the right.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Buddhism isn’t really a religion, the way I understand it, it’s not trying to sell anything like religions do, it’s more of a philosophical system, with psychological exercises and disciplines that to this day have proven to be of profound positive mental health impact.

    Then people went and built statues of Siddhartha Gautama, which he supposedly had asked not to happen. Then there’s the “fat Buddha” from China, who was actually someone who lived almost two millennia after, and is known there as “Budai”.

    Those statues and idols have nothing to do with what Buddhism originally proposes, in a nutshell: there is suffering in this world and life, how can we be free of suffering?

    • Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Just as Christianity is not a unified church, and is divided into Orthodox, Protestants, Catholics, evangelists, Baptists, and the bazillion of other denominations, Buddhism is very different ranging from extreme practices of Shingon sect, to a very practical philosophy of Dogen’s Zen Buddhism.

      Buddhism is many things, and religion as well.

  • Oka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Gods are mythical creatures,

    Religious stories are fables,

    Beliefs are opinions

    Ignorance is bliss

  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Something can be untrue without being a lie. Generally we like to say that for something to be a lie requires an intent to deceive. If I tell you “the next bus is coming at 3:30pm” and it arrives at 3:32, was I lying? No, the bus was just late.

    Anyway, most of these religions are very old and it’s hard to say we know anything about the mindset of the people who started them. Having said that, Scientology is not so old and based on Hubbard’s other writings we could probably make a solid case that he was intending to deceive people. So I don’t mind if you call that one a lie!

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I like your analogy. I am not a Christian, but I believe the majority of Christian writers had honest intentions and were working with the way the world seemed to be to them at the time.

      Eg Paul telling women to be silent in the church assembly is harsh but makes a little more sense given he’s created this mixed male/female religious meeting that didn’t exist before. It’s similar to telling all the new people to be quiet and sit still because they’re new to this. His reasoning is that “Eve” is weak. But the very fact he’s admitting all the women to his meetings in the first place shows he thought Christian belief was bringing men and women into a more equal space when previously there had been an even deeper division. And so on.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It is a position you hold until a belief system provides sufficient evidence for you to form and hold a belief.

      Gnostic atheism is a specific form which nobody actually holds to, which says that there positively is no god and this is known to be a fact. Any reasonable person would admit you can’t know this. And so virtually all atheists are agnostic atheists.

      Being an agnostic atheist does not mean you are “on the fence” or “undecided” or “accepting of all beliefs equally.” It means you are intellectually honest that you cannot prove the non-existence of a god any more than you can prove there isn’t a planet in the universe where it rains lemonade. But until you have a firm reason to believe that some god exists, you’re going to proceed as if they don’t, because that’s the conclusion, however perpetually provisional, that best matches the evidence.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        All gods are myths

        All religions are lies

        All faith - including that in the above two things - is delusion.

        I mean, you’re shooting your own messenger, but I hear ya.

        • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          “What drink would you like?”

          “I’ll take a nice tall glass of the absence of water please.”

          “You mean that you don’t want a drink?”

          “No, the drink I’m requesting and the one I intend to drink the absence of water. Its my favourite drink.”

          "So, like a coke or something.’

          "No, thats the presence of coke. I want to drink the absence of water…

          What do you mean by ‘I’m being ridiculous’?"